没有共识的推理:以色列/巴勒斯坦激进包容的基层实验

IF 1.1 2区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Erica Weiss
{"title":"没有共识的推理:以色列/巴勒斯坦激进包容的基层实验","authors":"Erica Weiss","doi":"10.1111/1467-9655.14321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Liberal public reason seeks to provide a neutral platform for political engagement. Yet, its conditions, notably the rules of engagement and the demand for consensus, effectively exclude many populations with non‐liberal subjectivities from public participation. In Israel‐Palestine, the majority of both Jewish and Palestinian populations hold non‐liberal subjectivities, and neither side can claim the position of an unmarked public speaking for a generalized, common public good. Yet, the price of non‐engagement in the context of acute civic crisis and violent, intractable conflict, is exceedingly high. This article considers the attempts of two local initiatives to create alternative methods for the radical inclusion of divergent cosmologies and ontological claims. The Citizens’ Accord Forum uses relatively mainstream communication techne to engage ultra‐Orthodox Jews and Muslims, but the interactions ‘spill over’ beyond the constraints of liberal reason. Siach Shalom upends the rules of communicative ethics of the liberal public sphere, relying on the Hasidic concept of the ‘unity of opposites’, a paradoxical logic that contains contrasts, as well as a vertical model of social change.","PeriodicalId":47904,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasoning without consensus: grassroots experiments in radical inclusion in Israel/Palestine\",\"authors\":\"Erica Weiss\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-9655.14321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Liberal public reason seeks to provide a neutral platform for political engagement. Yet, its conditions, notably the rules of engagement and the demand for consensus, effectively exclude many populations with non‐liberal subjectivities from public participation. In Israel‐Palestine, the majority of both Jewish and Palestinian populations hold non‐liberal subjectivities, and neither side can claim the position of an unmarked public speaking for a generalized, common public good. Yet, the price of non‐engagement in the context of acute civic crisis and violent, intractable conflict, is exceedingly high. This article considers the attempts of two local initiatives to create alternative methods for the radical inclusion of divergent cosmologies and ontological claims. The Citizens’ Accord Forum uses relatively mainstream communication techne to engage ultra‐Orthodox Jews and Muslims, but the interactions ‘spill over’ beyond the constraints of liberal reason. Siach Shalom upends the rules of communicative ethics of the liberal public sphere, relying on the Hasidic concept of the ‘unity of opposites’, a paradoxical logic that contains contrasts, as well as a vertical model of social change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47904,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.14321\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.14321","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自由主义公共理性寻求为政治参与提供一个中立的平台。然而,它的条件,特别是交战规则和对共识的要求,有效地将许多具有非自由主体性的人群排除在公众参与之外。在以色列-巴勒斯坦,大多数犹太人和巴勒斯坦人都拥有非自由主义的主体性,双方都不能为普遍的、共同的公共利益而声称自己是一个默默无闻的公共演讲。然而,在严重的公民危机和暴力、棘手冲突的背景下,不参与的代价是非常高的。本文考虑了两个地方倡议的尝试,为激进地包括不同的宇宙论和本体论主张创造替代方法。公民协议论坛使用相对主流的沟通技术来接触极端正统的犹太人和穆斯林,但这种互动“溢出”超出了自由理性的限制。Siach Shalom颠覆了自由公共领域的交流伦理规则,依靠哈西德派的“对立统一”概念,这是一种包含对比的悖论逻辑,以及社会变革的垂直模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reasoning without consensus: grassroots experiments in radical inclusion in Israel/Palestine
Liberal public reason seeks to provide a neutral platform for political engagement. Yet, its conditions, notably the rules of engagement and the demand for consensus, effectively exclude many populations with non‐liberal subjectivities from public participation. In Israel‐Palestine, the majority of both Jewish and Palestinian populations hold non‐liberal subjectivities, and neither side can claim the position of an unmarked public speaking for a generalized, common public good. Yet, the price of non‐engagement in the context of acute civic crisis and violent, intractable conflict, is exceedingly high. This article considers the attempts of two local initiatives to create alternative methods for the radical inclusion of divergent cosmologies and ontological claims. The Citizens’ Accord Forum uses relatively mainstream communication techne to engage ultra‐Orthodox Jews and Muslims, but the interactions ‘spill over’ beyond the constraints of liberal reason. Siach Shalom upends the rules of communicative ethics of the liberal public sphere, relying on the Hasidic concept of the ‘unity of opposites’, a paradoxical logic that contains contrasts, as well as a vertical model of social change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute is the principal journal of the oldest anthropological organization in the world. It has attracted and inspired some of the world"s greatest thinkers. International in scope, it presents accessible papers aimed at a broad anthropological readership. It is also acclaimed for its extensive book review section, and it publishes a bibliography of books received.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信